Slashdot Mirror
Sega Confirms Death of Dreamcast
Anonymous Coward writes "Sega of America has confirmed a $99 price drop and liquidation of all Dreamcast hardware. Peter Moore went on to say they will develop Virtua Figher 4 for the PS2, along with porting over some of Sega's older titles. He also listed all the new games that will be coming out in the next nine months. " The market is getting thinner
now. We're down to PS/2, and vaporous offerings from Microsoft and
Nintendo.
For the games, of course. Anyone who suggest that Sega has failed to deliver on the promise of "cool games" with what's currently available is patently delusional (Especially in comparison to the PS2's present lineup... yeesh).
Referring to this as the "Death of the Dreamcast" is also needless sensationalism. While it may be the death knell, it's not dead yet; Sega is simply ceasing to manufacture consoles. Hold on for a second... that isn't quite as bad as it sounds. Sega's support of the Dreamcast via software will continue via the (reported) 100 games still in the development pipeline, and remains in negotiation with other manufacturers to license the Dreamcast hardware; so DC-compatible DVD-players and the like could soon make an appearance (and there's still that X-Box rumor).
This has happened in the past; in the US, manufacture of Genesis systems from late '95 and on was done by Majesco sales, JVC offered the X'Eye, an integrated Genesis/SegaCD unit, and in Japan Hitachi produced Video CD player capable of playing Saturn games.
Yeah, it's not gonna live on forever; no console does. No, it's probably not going to outlast the PS2; this shouldn't really suprise anyone. Will Sega continue to support the console with software as long as it is reasonably profitable? Yes. Will any more consoles capable of running DC software be produced? Most likely. So we have both consoles and software, for a while at least; throwing the Dreamcast on the cart now is a bit premature.
Actually, there is little truth to this statement. Nintendo is still selling well in IT's market, which is different from the market for PS2 and DC. Nintendo has never killed a machine before the natural end of it's product cycle, and usually supports it well into it's twilight years. (I'm not counting Virtual Boy ... which was a collosal failure.)
When X-Box launches, Gameboy Advance (NOT a rumor, I might add, it's well past confirmed) should launch (June-ish), and Gamecube either at Christmas, or Q1 2002.
Now then, Microsoft has NEVER made a date for a major release, and there's little reason to suspect that X-Box will break the trend. Microsoft themselves have even suggested that Christmas might be more realistic, meaning GBA will beat it to market, and Gamecube should launch at approximately the same time.
Unfortunately, what probably will happen is that Sony will drop the ball this year. Microsoft will release the X-box to a small audience and start out slow. The X-box and PS2 will be in competition for about a year, maybe 18 months, with Microsoft gaining ground as Sony loses ground.
This is mostly correct. Sony's already pissing off third parties by not having enough installed base, and they are eager to see X-Box succeed. The rest of the paragraph is a bit wrong though. X-Box will not be priced lower ... I see it having price parity with PS2. As for PC integration ... that's a pipe dream. MS KNOWS that X-Box needs to be a console, not a PC, and is pushing down that road. Ask any developer ... X-Box is about games, and games only.
Nintendo and Microsoft will likely end up the major players unless Sony pulls it's head out of it's ass, but just like the last "war," Nintendo will probably end up grabbing the younger end of the market, and Microsoft will embrace the older generation.
And in case anyone wonders about my perceptions, I worked in the game industry for a while, and have studied it thoroughly. There is always a cycle to these things, and sometimes the players make them happen while denying that they will fall into the trap.
We're not going to get anywhere as long as people hold that attitude. Don't forget the Indrema! Specs of the X-Box, runs on Linux.
------
This press release off Sega's site says pretty much the same thing as the ign article, but it's straight from the horse's mouth.
Even when it was brand new, the Dreamcast sold for less than $300. Its not like the cost of a car or such.
There's more than enough games available for it to make it worth the $300 purchase: Space Channel 5, Virtua Tennis, Rayman 2, MDK 2, Sonic Adventure 1 (and 2), Shenmue (though I didn't care for it much myself, plenty of other people seem to like it), NFL2K1, NBA2K1, Soul Reaver, Soul Calibur, Dead or Alive 2, Tony Hawk Pro Skater 2, etc, etc, etc (there are many many more good games).
The simple fact is, consoles die. They are built to become obsolete eventually. This is not Dreamcast specific. Even if Sega kept making hardware, they'd most likely be pimping a 'Dreamcast 2' next year, and you'd still have the problem of the original Dreamcast support being dropped.
"The only problem is when people like you wouldn't even give the thing a chance."
I don't even like Consoles in general; I just call it as I see it. Honestly, I've never liked consoles - I think PC games are always much much more entertaining; but that's a whole other thing, and besides I wouldn't argue it, I just accept I'm different from most people.
The problem was not that 'only a handful' of games were flawed, the problem was that this handful were the first games released. This meant people who dropped $300 on the console, or were thinking of spending $300 when the hype was started, and christmas was occuring - these people didn't get to play 2 player games, or buy new games for a long time after the thing was released.
What's more is, Sega has always had a very bad reputation as far as the continuity of their products go. I don't remember anymore, (but don't think I didn't know my stuff last christmas) - but their last console did horribly, and because of that, they stopped producing games for it soon after everyone bought it. Just like what's happening here.
On the other hand, the PS had announced at the same time they were coming out with a NEW console that would be just as much or more hype, *and* be backwards compatible. You tell me what to tell Mrs. Doe with 4 kids and no income to buy so she doesn't declare bankruptcy again in 1 year trying to keep her kids happy.
On top of all this, our own in-store system had broken twice. I have absolutely no favouritism at all towards any company, in fact - I usually support the little guy; but when that happens to a new system by a company with little reputation (comparitively), I am not going to play sides because of some marketing hype they couldn't even provide for!
(our console(s) btw was never knocked around and was very well cooled and powered better than most people power their home stuff, and usually ran for less time than it would in a home!)
I'm really not knocking Sega, I know they have good intentions. But let me summarize:
1) The average person doesn't care if their system gets repaired within 2-3 weeks. If it breaks once, its a major pain in the ass compared to another system that probably wouldn't. Sega broke twice on us in a month. (That's 3 consoles we went through!). The second was from a completely different batch.
2) The system was much more expensive than the PS, and with all the hype about the PS2 - and the fact it was backwards compatible, why buy a dreamcast at that time when you knew if it failed, you would be screwed (I was right afterall! it did fail, and now you're all screwed for the future).
3) We couldn't even sell parents the stuff their kids needed to enjoy the thing (ie: 2 player compatibility!). "When are you getting the memory? the controllers? The other 50 games? (We had like 8 games at the start)" - "Sega tells us very soon"... "Sega tells us very soon"... "Sega said it would be soon about a month ago"... "I dunno it's been 3 months since Sega last told us it would be soon". Oh look they're here, the hypes dead.
Dude, I gave Sega its fair chance - and I was right, it died. You gamers are just sore losers because you want something better and Sega did not provide.
Ace
If this is slowly dying, then what do you consider a success?
No, it's a $50 price drop TO $99.
Had me looking all over the web for a $50 Dreamcast, too. :-p
Look at some of the games listed in the article as coming to the PS2 later this year:
Virtua Fighter 4 (Fall)
Space Channel 5 (Later?)
And After April:
Crazy Taxi
18 Wheel American Pro Trucker
Zombie Revenge
Wow! So, around the time of the XBox launch, I'll be able to play Crazy Taxi and Virtua Fighter 4, as well at GT3 and ZOE on the PS2?
The only question is how soon those games might be ported to the XBox (I assume "platform agnostic" means they'll develop almost any game for any system). But if they are on the PS2 first, during the XBox launch, it could really increase support for the PS2.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Dreamcast built up a more impressive library in a year and a half than the N64 did in five years. Sega getting out of hardware is a good thing. Now their top-notch software development teams will be able to play to a much larger audience, and they won't be tied to the money-losing console half of the business.
It took them awhile, but Sega finally got it right. Let other companies eat the loss, you just sit back and rake in the profits.
I don't look at the Dreamcast as a failure. In my eyes, it's the most successful console to be released in a long time. The first console with a VGA adaptor, the first console to come with a modem, the first console with Ethernet connectivity. And the games were actually fun.
In a market that's driven primarily by hype, thank you, Sega, for daring to be different.
And long live the Dreamcast.
I woke up this morning to NPR talking about the Dreamcast finally being dead. While I was drinking coffee, I opened up the NY Times to an article about Dreamcast being dead.
But until I saw it on Slashdot, I wasn't sure it was true. 'Cuz until Slashdot reports it, it ain't news.
Slashdot is jumping the shark. I'm just driving the boat.
With no competition, there is little incentive to actually innovate, and the prices for the consoles will go sky high as your monopoly spends more and more money muscleing out any possible competition from the field.
The console makes relatively little money for the manufacturer (and none for the people that produce games for it) compared to what they rake in on the games they sell for it. As far as I know, this is true for every manufacturer who has ever produced a console, or a game for said console. (I wouldn't mind seeing counter-examples, if anyone has any.)
Pick a game theme on one of those consoles, and consider how many different versions of it there are. Two or three of each type of sports game (football, basketball, baseball), four or five different racing games (some brand name like Nascar, others with different exotic twists), and some genres occur almost spontaneously, and breed like rabbits -- for a while on the PSX you couldn't spit without hitting some variant of a skateboarding game.
Even games which have no other manufacturers' prior art to sell their offbeat concepts, still have to compete with the quality of the staid classic games for the consumer's limited cash, and that means they have to innovate like nobody's business. (Mmmmmm... Incredible Crisis)
On any given single console, there is still a great deal of competition: Each and every development company is looking to take that console that someone's produced, and squeeze every bit of fun, action, adrenaline, and pulse-pumping excitement onto a CD or cartridge using the SDK the developer has shipped them.
And they have to do this knowing that everyone else has received pretty much the same kit -- the ultimate in leveled playing fields. The only thing they can do is compete.
The system can be nothing but bells and whistles, or it can be plain. Developers will still try to wring the technotes for every pixel of power they can get. This means innovation, ladies and gentlemen, even if there's only one platform worth noting on the market.
In some ways, this competition between software producers is more important than the competition between hardware manufacturers. One of the biggest selling points of any hardware is the software that runs on it. It may also be worthwhile noting some aspects of the strategies of the hardware manufacturers:
Sony , when developing the PS2, tried to innovate their asses off. They did things no sane person would want to do to graphic hardware in order to get the maximum 'polygon-pushing power'. Consequently, as has been mentioned many times around here, the thing is something of a beast to program, but theoretically, when someone hits the mark and programs it right, watch out. This will end up, they hope, producing truly eye-popping games which will better sell their system.
Microsoft wanted to give X-Box developer and SDK primarily only to those developers who wanted to play by Microsoft's rules (read: bend over and smile like a shark. R.I.P. Bungie) -- get the creme de la creme of producers producing the biggest, brightest, most innovative games on your system, and the consumers will flock (n. a collective of sheep) to it, even if it's a dog turd with joystick ports.
And Nintendo is going with brand recognition and their successful merchandising lines (like the Pokemon phenomenon which, although the bottom is dropping out of the trading card market, still seems strong) to sell their next-gen console. Sure, it's a merchandising angle rather than a software angle, but guess what? The software that ties into that giant marketing machine will only run on their system. They're also promising a very easy to program system, to attract those developers that get frustrated with Sony's beast or Microsoft's attitude.
---
You cannot truly appreciate Dilbert until you read it in the original Klingon.
--
A company announces a product line, gets thousands if not millions of people to shell out the cash for it, then abandons the product. It happens all the time. The question is, did Sega imply by selling the DC that they were going to produce an extensive line of games for it? When you bought the DC, were you buying a cool piece of equipment *or* were you buying a player for cool games?
Judge Pag, the Learned, Impartial, and Very Relaxed
About a week ago I was discussing the console market with a friend. I gave him my opinion, and I'll share it here.
The competition is between Sony and Microsoft, Nintendo is a different league. Sony is a consumer electronics company making a gaming platform. Microsoft is a software monopoly looking to extract full rents with hardware. Neither is a game company (MS does have a games division, but it isn't the corporate focus).
This helps them with third party games. The companies don't fear the manufacturer screwing them to help their games. Their licensing fees don't price their games out of the market, everyone is a licensee. In fact, in this point, Sony has a big edge (MS business history AND their game division). However, MS has a big edge, DirectX. If you are making a PC game, the X-Box port will be trivial, this keeps Microsoft in it. I expect both consoles to do well, but I can't tell who has the edge. MS can launch with games, but Sony has loyal players, I can't tell.
Nintendo is NOT a consumer electronics/operating systems play, it is a game company. They make boxes to push their games. They focus on the Japanese market where they dominate. XBox will be states-side, with American companies churning out the games, they are too Amercian-centric to make it in Japan (my opinion).
Nintendo sells to the states as an afterthought. The original gameboy is ancient, but it beat the newer systems that followed it (including color systems, 32-bit systems, etc). Why? It has Nintendo's games.
Nintendo has some GREAT series. The Zelda and Mario series dominate. Even without a single third-party game, we all by the Nintendo consoles to play the Mario Games, the Zelda games, and Mario Kart, etc. This means that they get the consoles into a LOT of homes. Third party support may or may not come, but I'd be shocked of none hitting. I mean, Nintendo can put boxes in people's houses.
They aren't about hype. They aim for the kids market. Their kid focus lets parents feel safe buying the system, and the systems are fun for kids. Nintendo knows this market, and they own this market.
At the same time this is bad news. With no competition, there is little incentive to actually innovate, and the prices for the consoles will go sky high as your monopoly spends more and more money muscleing out any possible competition from the field.
Some people say that Sony is already shifting into this mentality with the rather incremental upgrade that the PS2 is instead of the groundbreaking new machine. Nintendo fell victim to this with the SNES (although they got away with it for the longest time) and now it's killing them.
In summary: Console Monopolies aren't good, and they don't last anyway.
Down that path lies madness. On the other hand, the road to hell is paved with melting snowballs.
I read the internet for the articles.
Well, Taco, you're asleep at the wheel again, I see.
You know, it's not as if the tech demos, the in game footage (Rogue Squadron 2?), and the fully functional hardware sitting in the hands of developers actually *means* anything... Noooooo...
XBox might be considered vaporous. Maybe. I've heard lots of reports of games being developed, but I haven't seen any running games on it yet, while I have for the GameCube. See, vaporware usually implies that nothing exists outside of closed doors. In this case, info is out in the open, demos have been run, the bare metal is being used already. Granted, it hasn't shipped, but that's a totally different story, and one that I'd rather not deal with at the moment.
Seriously, though... you've really got to stop adding your own personal bias so forcefully to your content. Take a hint from real journalists. If you're partial, be subtle about it.
Raptor
Raptor
"Procrastination is great. It gives me a lot more time to do things that I'm never going to do."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
But until I saw it on Slashdot, I wasn't sure it was true. 'Cuz until Slashdot reports it, it ain't news. With the way slashdot has been posting stories lately I was sure it was true until I saw it on /.
They're continuing software development, so the ISO's will be illegal. Emulating the hardware is, and has always been, legal.
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
I worked at CompuCentre when the Dreamcast first came out - our in store demo had to be replaced twice because of problems with the Console itself burning out.
We got tonnes of customers around Christmas who wanted the standard items, like, an extra Controller. Sega kept promising delivery, but most of the stuff people were looking didn't show up for 4 months!
Games were released that Sega quickly found didn't actually work in the console (Something to do with the quality of the CD they printed the games on causing problems with the copy-protection scheme in the console).
People who bought the consoles despite these major flaws (And me telling them when the boss was in the back room "Don't buy this thing, it's absolute crap! it really is, seriously, don't.... ever. don't.") - well, these people showed up week after week waiting for the games scheduled for quick release; and they didn't come out on time either. By the time I left compucentre, they had all the controllers, memory packs and lots and lots of games for the Dreamcast - as well as 4 console units that never sold in 4 months because by that time - nobody wanted the damn things.
This particular store could sell 5 - 10 Playstation Consoles in a single day; which is very good for retail in a small Canadian city eh.
Ace
Unfortunately, the death of the Dreamcast has given us a view of things to come.
The major console systems as of before Dreamcast bowed out were Nintendo (Nintendo 64), Sony (Playstation 2) and Sega (Dreamcast), with Microsoft coming soon with the X-box. Nintendo has been slowly dying out over the past few years, with much of the Nintendo and Sega crowd going over to the Playstation and Playstation 2.
What it looks like will happen is that in a year or so, we will hear Nintendo barely hanging on as the X-box comes out. Unless Nintendo pulls a power move, probably in the handheld gaming market (which will probably be the rumored upcoming GameBoy Advance), they will bow out soon also.
Sony will be the only competitor to Microsoft. Hopefully, Sony will solidify it's consumer base and hold on to them with a drastic reduce in price of it's console and a wide variety of good, solid games, along with development of their online gaming division.
Unfortunately, what probably will happen is that Sony will drop the ball this year. Microsoft will release the X-box to a small audience and start out slow. The X-box and PS2 will be in competition for about a year, maybe 18 months, with Microsoft gaining ground as Sony loses ground. Microsoft will win out by offering lower prices and integration with the PC platform, along with a wide variety of online games. This will probably also lead to Microsoft licensing it's game operating system, and new consoles, all running X-box OS will pop up, all sanctioned by Microsoft. Sony will become a very minor player, eventually dying out sometime in the next 5 years.
Unfortunately, that's the way it most likely will turn out.
icanneverbereached@sogoaway.com aint my address.
Baloney. If Nintendo had kept hold of their "almost monopoly" they had on the console market back in the SNES days (there were others there, but they weren't much of a threat), we'd still be playing games squeezed on ROM chip carts. As it is, Nintendo tried to get away with that aging technology with the N64, and they got butchered by the PS1. If not for the incredible character lineup (Pokemon, Mario, etc), the N64 might have been the death of Nintendo.
On the contrary, console competition is a good thing, just like it is in practically every other business. Sony kinda fscked up with the PS2 release, by limiting (intentionally or not) the number of units, and not having a good selection of games at release. The result? A bunch of pissed off gamers who can't get a PS2, and another bunch who got them, but are wondering why they bothered for 3-4 decent games.
Think maybe MS and Nintendo will take a cue from that? One can only imagine the marketing opportunities. "XBox: Go ahead and sleep in, we made plenty". "GameCube: Cause one game isn't enough".
I'm sad to see this happen, but my friends will be happy to get dreamcasts for $100. I suggest anyone reading this go out on Feb 4th (when the pricebreaks happen) and buy one, it's a fantastic system. There's a ton of good games out, and a lot of them are only $20. Check out Crazy Taxi (ultimate party game), Soul Caliber, and Target's current offerings.
The dreamcast is the only online console right now, and according to UPS my ethernet adapter should be on my doorstep this afternoon. Phantasy Star Online ought to kick ass, and give Everquesters a run for their money.
Someone pointed out that the DC runs WinCE, which isn't true most of the time, but it is for Nightmare Creatures 2, as evidenced by the first 10 minutes of playing the game on my birthday: Pic 1, Pic 2
Sega makes some of the most unique games out there, from Jet Grind Radio to Seaman to Crazy Taxi... It would be worth your while to check them out if you haven't already.
My $0.02
--
Why can't I moderate something "Wrong" or at least "Grossly Misinformed"?
the Playstations 2 is the PSX2, never, under any circumstances should it be referred to as the PS/2. PS/2 brings up bad memories of MCA and other nasties.
This is my signature. There are many signatures like it but this one is mine..
I hate to be another "did you read the article" poster, but they are not dropping the Dreamcast platform, they're just stopping their own production of the Dreamcast console and licensing the technology out so someone else can do that part (better/cheaper). The console sales were always the least profitable (sometimes blatantly unprofitable) part of the whole proposition.
There will be more Dreamcast games, more Dreamcast accessories, and, in all likelihood, more Dreamcast (or Dreamcast-compatible) consoles. Look at the other articles on IGN (http://dreamcast.ign.com/news/30862.html, for instance) for more details.
-Puk
I owned an 8 bit master system, when Sega shipped the Genesis they said that they were going to continue Master System development. They kept that promise for allof about 2 months. Then the Sega CD and 32X were treated the same way when the Saturn shipped. Finally Saturn users were anally violated by Sega when they shipped the DC. Now all of those people who were loyal to Sega will take it in the butt again.
After the Genesis, I swore to never buy another Sega console system again, I'm as happy as ever about that decision.
Sega gets no more chances to stick a red hot poker in my eye.
Now that I've sworn off all console systems, I couldn't care less who is making or discontinuing what and what is or isn't vaporous.
I'm a PC gamer now, at least until something better comes along.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
If there is a console monopoly, there will be no advancement in the console game market. If the PS2 were the only console available, we'd have nothing but PS2 for years to come. I don't know about you, but I like it when technology advances. Monopolies are almost never a good thing.
------